I will refer to my earlier post and say that when your quote was written, Paul, in the context of the time, this was probably a valid idea. The colonists who were now the leaders of the new nation were terrified that the Europeans (read British) would return and seize power. So the fear was not against their neighbour, or their leaders but against a possible foreign power. At that time this was a fair assumption so they suggested that an armed civilian militia was a good idea.
The guns of the time were as lethal as today if you were hit by a bullet from one, but they were slow to load, hard to aim with and were only able, at best to manage to fire about 3 or 4 bullets a minute. I know nothing about guns but even I know that now, with an automatic weapon a non-stop spray of bullets is possible. Random firing produces horrific death tolls- such as 20 6-year-olds. No civilian needs those weapons.
Now the government thing. A democratic government is elected by the people to represent them. Sometimes the party you favour is not elected by the majority, and this is the strength of the system. Next time there is an election they can be peacefully removed--- no rioting, no need for guns etc,. Perhaps what is needed is a look at why it is that America seems to have lost faith in democracy, and does not trust the system to provide an accurate representation of the population's wishes. The government is 'you', it represents you and if people do not vote how can there be fair government.
Reaching for the gun and starting a war is not stable government, and countries where that happens are not ones where anyone wants to live. Safety does not lie in a gun --- it lies in strong representation, and clear, achievable goals, and the concept of freedom has to allow for many opinions to flourish. Shooting people does not allow for any of that and eventually everyone's reactions are blunted, and children carry the cost.
